Dr. Roy Spencer recently opined about this issue (which is different from UHI) in: Waste Heat as a Contributor to Observed Warming
If we divide that by the surface area of the U.S. in meters, we get 0.33 watts per sq. meter.
Now, compare that the the total radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations supposedly operating today, which (according to the IPCC) is somewhere around 1.6 W/m2.
…
…waste heat from our use of energy keeps getting generated, no matter how much our surroundings have warmed. So, with this correction, we now see that waste heat generation (0.33) becomes more like 50% of the remaining radiative imbalance (0.6) from anthropogenic GHG production.
Waste Heat is Mostly Released in the Lowest 10% of the Atmosphere
It seems his observations were spot-on, as this new paper just published in Nature Climate Change tells us. From the University of San Diego:
Urban Heat Has Large-scale Climate Effects
Researchers find that heat given off by metropolitan areas is enough to influence winter warming
The heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas has a significant enough warming effect to influence the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems during winter months, according to a trio of climate researchers.
Led by Guang Zhang, a research meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, the scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the extra heat given off by Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) of warming in winter. They added that this effect helps explain the disparity between actual observed warming in the last half-century and the amount of warming that computer models have been able to account for.
“What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions,” said Zhang. “This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The study, “Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America,” appears in online editions of the journal Jan. 27. The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and NOAA supported the research.
Zhang, along with Ming Cai of Florida State University and Aixue Hu of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., considered the energy consumption – from heating buildings to powering vehicles – that generates waste heat release. The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was 16 terawatts (one terawatt equals 1 trillion watts). Of that, 6.7 TW were consumed in 86 metropolitan areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
The release of waste heat is different from energy that is naturally distributed in the atmosphere, the researchers noted. The largest source of heat, solar energy, warms Earth’s surface and atmospheric circulations distribute that energy from one region to another. Human energy consumption distributes energy that had lain dormant and sequestered for millions of years, mostly in the form of oil or coal. Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.
Zhang said the effect his team studied is distinct from the so-called urban heat island effect, an increase in the warmth of cities compared to unpopulated areas caused by human activities.
The authors report that the influence of urban heat can widen the jet stream and strengthens atmospheric flows at mid-latitudes. They add that the warming is not uniform. Partially counterbalancing it, the changes in major atmospheric systems cool areas of Europe by as much as 1 degree C, with much of the temperature decrease occurring in the fall.
Overall, these changes have a noticeable but slight effect on global temperatures, increasing them worldwide by an average of about 0.1 degree C.
The study does not address whether the urban heating effect disrupts atmospheric weather patterns or plays a role in accelerating global warming, though Zhang said drawing power from renewable sources such as solar or wind provides a societal benefit in that it does not add net energy into the atmosphere.
The authors also contend that the urban heat effect accounts for the discrepancy between observed warming and winter warming simulated in the models used by the climate science community for analysis and prediction of climate. They suggest that the influence of energy consumption accompany heat-trapping gases and aerosols as necessary variables in computer models.
###
Here is another press release from NCAR:
BOULDER—Even if you live more than 1,000 miles from the nearest large city, it could be affecting your weather.
In a new study that shows the extent to which human activities are influencing the atmosphere, scientists have concluded that the heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas alters the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems. This affects temperatures across thousands of miles, significantly warming some areas and cooling others, according to the study this week in Nature Climate Change.
The extra “waste heat” generated from buildings, cars, and other sources in major Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes winter warming across large areas of northern North America and northern Asia. Temperatures in some remote areas increase by as much as 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the research by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography; University of California, San Diego; Florida State University; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
At the same time, the changes to atmospheric circulation caused by the waste heat cool areas of Europe by as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with much of the temperature decrease occurring in the fall.
The net effect on global mean temperatures is nearly negligible—an average increase worldwide of just 0.01 degrees C (about 0.02 degrees F). This is because the total human-produced waste heat is only about 0.3 percent of the heat transported across higher latitudes by atmospheric and oceanic circulations.
However, the noticeable impact on regional temperatures may explain why some regions are experiencing more winter warming than projected by climate computer models, the researchers conclude. They suggest that models be adjusted to take the influence of waste heat into account.
“The burning of fossil fuel not only emits greenhouse gases but also directly affects temperatures because of heat that escapes from sources like buildings and cars,” says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, a co-author of the study. “Although much of this waste heat is concentrated in large cities, it can change atmospheric patterns in a way that raises or lowers temperatures across considerable distances.”
Distinct from urban heat island effect
The researchers stressed that the effect of waste heat is distinct from the so-called urban heat island effect. Such islands are mainly a function of the heat collected and re-radiated by pavement, buildings, and other urban features, whereas the new study examines the heat produced directly through transportation, heating and cooling units, and other activities.
The study, “Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America,” appeared online yesterday. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, as well as the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hu, along with lead author Guang Zhang of Scripps and Ming Cai of Florida State University, analyzed the energy consumption—from heating buildings to powering vehicles—that generates waste heat release. The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was equivalent to a constant-use rate of 16 terawatts (1 terawatt, or TW, equals 1 trillion watts). Of that, an average rate of 6.7 TW was consumed in 86 metropolitan areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
Using a computer model of the atmosphere, the authors found that the influence of this waste heat can widen the jet stream.
“What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions,” Zhang says. “This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The release of waste heat is different from energy that is naturally distributed in the atmosphere, the researchers noted. The largest source of heat, solar energy, warms Earth’s surface and atmospheric circulations redistribute that energy from one region to another. Human energy consumption distributes energy that had lain dormant and sequestered for millions of years, mostly in the form of oil or coal.
Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.
“The world’s most populated and energy-intensive metropolitan areas are along the east and west coasts of the North American and Eurasian continents, underneath the most prominent atmospheric circulation troughs and ridges,” Cai says. “The release of this concentrated waste energy causes the noticeable interruption to the normal atmospheric circulation systems above, leading to remote surface temperature changes far away from the regions where waste heat is generated.”
About the article
Title: Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America
Authors: Ghang J. Zhang, Ming Cai, and Aixue Hu
Publication: Nature Climate Change, January 27, 2013
===============================================================
The Paper:
Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America
Guang J. Zhang, Ming Cai, & Aixue Hu
Abstract:
The worldwide energy consumption in 2006 was close to 498 exajoules. This is equivalent to an energy convergence of 15.8 TW into the populated regions, where energy is consumed and dissipated into the atmosphere as heat. Although energy consumption is sparsely distributed over the vast Earth surface and is only about 0.3% of the total energy transport to the extratropics by atmospheric and oceanic circulations, this anthropogenic heating could disrupt the normal atmospheric circulation pattern and produce a far-reaching effect on surface air temperature. We identify the plausible climate impacts of energy consumption using a global climate model. The results show that the inclusion of energy use at 86 model grid points where it exceeds 0.4 W m−2 can lead to remote surface temperature changes by as much as 1 K in mid- and high latitudes in winter and autumn over North America and Eurasia. These regions correspond well to areas with large differences in surface temperature trends between observations and global warming simulations forced by all natural and anthropogenic forcings1. We conclude that energy consumption is probably a missing forcing for the additional winter warming trends in observations.
The supplementary Information (SI) for this paper is here, and well worth reading:
Click to access nclimate1803-s1.pdf
I’ll have updates to this in follow up stories – Anthony
I doubt they have tried, Jean. And I doubt that they will try, either.
“Boy, do I hate being right all the time!” – Jeff Goldblum, alias Dr. Ian Malcolm, in “Jurassic Park”
No kidding: For years I am assuming already that the heat, which is constantly generated through energy-production, MUST have a substantial effect on “AGW” i.e. since I grew up in the shadows of the enormous steam-plumes generated by four (FOUR!) coal-fired power-plants built in a line in the Rhineland, Germany.
We are talking – how much? Like 10 Gigatons of carbon-based fuels burned per year, right?
So the heat generated by that MUST have an effect on the atmosphere!
Told ‘ya so!
Boy, do these climatologists EVER leave their offices an go out into the real world?
I heard of a research project that said this years ago but the author of it could get funding for a PhD while a conventional thinking applicant from a far lower rated university with the same class of degree got his funding. That is on top of three similar ones where I personally knew those involved.
I could not find any attempt when talking about the record temperatures in Australia to allow for the bush fires which given they covered thousands of square miles and were hot enough to make car roofs sag surely must have been very significant. bush fires on that scale are unprecedented as they previously did not have any lobby preventing the creation of the fire breaks for environmental reasons.
Sadly this is the expected norm for climate science standards.
Peter Hannan says:
January 27, 2013 at 10:00 pm
OK, the abstract says ’498 exajoules’, which is energy, which comes out as about 16 Terawatt-seconds per year.
————————-
Abstract:
The worldwide energy consumption in 2006 was close to 498 exajoules. This is equivalent to an energy convergence of 15.8 TW into the populated regions, where energy —–
TW is not Terawatt-seconds per year. The statement is clearly wrong. Bafflegab. Used car salesman science. What is “convergence”? I know it as an artillery term. Why change to a wrong unit mid statement? Did the authors lift the data without understanding it or is it intended to mislead?
Charles Gerard Nelson says
All of it ends up as heat eventually. In the long run its 100% efficient conversion to heat.
Dear Lazy Teenager.
Straighten us out here with your scientific wisdom.
Example. A diesel powered elevator is used to lift one ton of rock 500 feet, from the bottom of a quarry to the top. In the process produces ‘waste heat’ and performs ‘work’.
Could you explain what you mean when you say…
‘all of it ends up as heat eventually. In the long run its (sic) 100% efficient conversion to heat.’
How does one ton of rock sitting 500 feet above its former resting place ‘end up’ as ‘heat’?
Are all Warmists as dumb as you?
In this case I am in the very unusual position of having to agree with “Lazy Teenager”. All energy eventually ends up as heat. The operative word is “eventually”. When the energy is used to make e. g. steel or aluminium the heat is liberated when the metal oxidizes, decades or centuries later. In the case of the rock mentioned above it happens when the rock (or the material in it) falls or sinks back to the original level. True, it might take a couple of hundred thousand (or a few million) years before erosion takes its course, but it’s gonna happen someday!
“Odd number 20,773,461. I take it there was a crash. And the plane was scrapped?”
Nope, just one aircraft more (or less) on the ground at the end of 2012 than at the beginning of 1989.
J. Philip Peterson says:
January 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“unexplained winter warming over northern Asia” You’re talking about Siberia? Getting too warm there in winter, I’d like to see the data.
———————————————————————————————————————
I rather suppose, they mean Bejing. Bejing lies close to the northern border of China – as is explained by it’s name, already, because Bejing means “Northern Capital” in Han.
Gotta love that “unexplained winter warming”. Here is a CET record per seasons:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tstcetseason.png
There are many short-term winter season warmings of exactly the same magnitude like in 1985-2000, all placed on steady warming trend since the bottom of LIA.
Trying to separate waste heat from UHI effects seems to have more of a political than scientific purpose. The map shown could be easily mistaken for a map of surface stations reporting to WMO. Waste heat which is part of UHI does infinity more damage to “Climate Science” than it could to the real climate.
Trying to use waste heat as an excuse to justify wind turbine subsidy farms will not work either. Extracting 16 Terawatts from the horizontal kinetic energy of the atmosphere with wind turbines all placed in high wind areas will have a far more serious consequences for the climate than the distributed release of waste heat.
As selling the old AGW hoax that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces its ability to radiativly cool becomes unworkable we will sadly see more studies like this. The “waste heat” plan will work no better than the “black carbon” plan. The developing world is already creating much of the “problem”. It won’t justify wealth redistributed under a framework of UN Global governance. They will just have to try harder. No one gets to slink away to “biocrisis” or “sustainability” if the “warming” thing totally fails.
it would be interesting to see how much ‘waste heat’ is related to UHI. I’d assume it prolongs its effect.
Also without waste heat a lot of bad placement of thermometers wouldn’t have been so dramatic in impact. Perhaps waste height has a lot to answer for?
Any forcing element that seeks to make the vertical temperature profile diverge from that set by gravity and pressure will result in a circulation adjustment.
The circulation adjustment is a negative system response that restores and maintains top of atmosphere thermal equilibrium unless one also changes atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field or the total amount of energy coming in from outside the atmosphere.
That principle applies whether the forcing element is natural or anthropogenic.
The most important fact, though, is that solar and oceanic variations with chaotic variability superimposed on all timescales are so vast in comparison that our efforts count for nothing.
I have long been saying that if CO2 has any effect then the system response will be a miniscule circulation change and that such a change alters the rate of energy throughput so as to keep the top of the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium.
At least this paper now explicity recognises a link between forcing elements and circulation adjustments.
Soot, waste heat, lowered warming projections……………what next? But, we can’t think of anything else so it must be co2.
I think climate scientists should call a large conference and honestly re-examine their previous assumptions, re-programe their computer models too.
The sentence .” The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was 16 terawatts … ” not surprisngly has confused some of the commenters, as TW is am unit of power not energy and the as the sentence as stands is just garbage, a not really uncommon attribute of CS press releases . However the NCAR press release is somewhat clearer about this as it says ” The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was equivalent to a constant-use rate of 16 terawatts..”. And the abstract states 498 exajoules as total world energy consumption for that year. Now converting 498 exajoule ( 10^18 ws ) to TWh comes out as 138,333 TWh , dividing that number by 24 (hours/day)x 365.2425 ( avg.days per year) then gives 15.78 TW that is rounded up to first 15.8 TW in the papers abstract some and called energy convergence ( head scratch ??? ) , then rounded up further to 16 TW in both press releases, so I reckon what is meant is that the world energy consumption in 2006 was ~ 16 TW-years ( equivalent to 16 TW of Power use , 24/7 for the whole year ).
Some people seem to investigate this topic.
http://www.megapoli.info/
megapoli.dmi.dk/publ/MEGAPOLI_sr10-01.pdf
Jean says:
January 27, 2013 at 7:34 pm
How do you separate the waste heat from the unmixed CO2 plumes these urban areas certainly generate?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What unmixed CO2 plumes? These? map
Remember the first conjecture of CAGW is that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. Of course plants gobble down the CO2 dragging the concentration in their area down to ~300 ppm within minutes of the sun rising. (I have the links if someone wants them)
Still going on about GHG’s? Dr Spencer would do well to devote some time to reading Joseph E. Postma’s papers published on his web site http://www.climateofsophistry.com these put GHG’s into the rubbish bin of 2nd law violations. He also explains why the thinking behind the introduction of the GHG theory is confused and not based on reality or even empirical measurement.
” Such islands are mainly a function of the heat collected and re-radiated by pavement, buildings, and other urban features, whereas the new study examines the heat produced directly through transportation, heating and cooling units, and other activities.”
Since when? I thought the definition of Urban Heat Island was just a description of the urban area being warmer than surrounding rural areas. I’ve NEVER heard anyone of TV mention that it’s +4 degrees warmer in town due solely to pavement, and they don’t know how much heat is being contributed by energy usage.
t(UHI) = t(town) – t(rural)
That said, it’s not saying anything that wasn’t obvious before. When heat is generated within the system it’s no different than energy being added to the system via solar input. It has to go someplace. Nice to see them admitting it, even though the science is settled.
Of course, the pessimist in me is just seeing this as an excuse to initiate the CO2 tax based on how many therms we’re adding to the system instead of CO2… this way even if CO2 proves negligible, they still get their energy-crushing taxes and control.
About the only benefit that entire study demonstrated in the end, it was really just a commercial for solar panels. When one takes into consideration the heat in the deserts, the volcanic eruptions and the heat from bare earth in the middle of summer that can and does melt the sole of your shoes, then what really are they saying. The Planet has been dealing with those variations for a long time. So what else is really new ?
Can we nudge the Green movement into a sane direction, maybe? Preserve the planet – build future cities in space.
” Nice to see them admitting it, even though the science is settled.”
Now that I think of it though, we’re we explicitly told that energy usage was negligible compared to the solar input of the sun, and therefore ignored?
So we are accounting for winter warming by the city heat output. Question. Do they also account for some portion of environmental heating during the summer the same way? Let’s face it, A/C units do nothing but turn all electricity used in them into heat, thus I would have to assume that the city heat output would effect summer climate more than winter climate, where at least part of the heat remains, more or less, inside, heating the structures, although I would guess that also effects the winter climate. Looks like yet another line of attack on using carbon based fuels for tthe etterment of mankind, thus we still need to have carbon trading, etc., to save the planet.
From the original:
First and foremost: Name for me one downside of this. As someone who grew up and lives in a winter climate, explain to me how our -40C lows changed to -39C could possibly, in any way shape or form, be a bad thing. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Second, claiming that this alleged 1C warming (which, incidentally, is not physically possible… are they claiming the ENTIRE Northern Hemisphere is 1C warmer than it would be if we weren’t using energy???) could possibly be altering something as far outside of our ability to control as the jet streams is nothing short of DELUSIONAL. The jet streams, typically tens of thousands of feet above ground, don’t change course based on anything as trivial as spot heat that isn’t even a measurable fraction of a percent of the naturally occurring heat in the atmosphere.
Third, the claim that “waste heat” is “different” from any other sort of heat is nothing short of Junk Science. Heat is heat.
Fourth, excess heat is conveniently radiated out to space at night, and nights are LONG in the North during winter.
There is nothing of value in this “study”. Nothing.
The important but never-asked question is: given the wide swings of temperature in the past million years, just what is the optimum temperature? Are we above it and the present trend is harmful, or are we below it and the present trend is beneficial?
Haven’t time to read it again more thoroughly – but I will offer comment that these people talk of tiny amounts of heat energy (0.4w/m2 IIRC) and reckon this IS significant but these same climate science people think that 0.1% variation in TSI = 1.36 w/m2 is NOT significant? I wish they would make their friggin minds up!
By now, with Al Gore exiting stage left, it is pretty obvious that ‘Global Warming’ has lost its high panic factor and the climb down is in progress. However the need for a ‘Crisis to Unite Us’ and a reason to implement Agenda 21 Sustainability and Global Governance still remains. We have been wondering what the next hobgoblin would be. This paper looks like it hit a bulls eye.
“The heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas has a significant enough warming effect to influence the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems during winter months, according to a trio of climate researchers.”
That is the money quote along with:
“Zhang said drawing power from renewable sources such as solar or wind provides a societal benefit in that it does not add net energy into the atmosphere.”
This effectively kills nuclear power as an option too, so that leaves Agenda 21 and The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, that is the herding of humans into enclaves where they can not harm GAIA the only option. SEE MAP
With nuclear it could be business as usual and that is not what is wanted. list of bills, laws and treaties
The excess heat from western civilization affecting the jet stream is the absolutely perfect hobgoblin for them. We KNOW the jets have changed from zonal to a meridional pattern in response to the changes in the sun and oceans. We KNOW a meridional pattern results in ‘wilder’ weather patterns, blocking highs, extremes in heat and cold, drought and rain. Even more perfect it is different weather pattern compared to the last thirty years and most do not remember the weather of the 1960’s and 1970’s, so the perfect hobgoblin.
Even better just like the IPCCs “CO2 causes the temperature to rise”, it is darn hard to prove/disprove just what causes the shifts in the jets from zonal to a meridional.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND
We are all aware that grants are awarded based on political utility. ( SEE:Massive climate funding exposed and The climate industry wall of money ) So I ask what is the political utility of this paper?
We have all seen the political message morph from Global Warming to Climate Change to Weather Weirding. We have seen the political utility of tropical storm/hurricane Sandy.
I am going to steal a few quotes from C3Headlines (It is worth reading the rest of the quotes.)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
In other words create a crisis to order to implement Diocletian’s Problem-Reaction-Solution
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” ~ H.L. Mencken
The Club of Rome put this concept in another form:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”
The UN put the concept into practice. The IPCC mandate states:
The IPCC was never about finding out what factors were responsible for controlling the climate. Instead humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to hang the human race.
Pascal Lamy takes ‘Practical Politics’ the next step, by telling us the “new enemy to unite us” is needed to create Legitimacy, one of the three legs needed to implement a global government… It gives me great pleasure to be here today to participate in this thematic debate on the United Nations in global governance, an issue of the utmost importance given the urgency of the global challenges we are facing… As for legitimacy, I see two avenues to strengthen it. First, domestically, by increasing the visibility of international issues and giving citizens a greater say There sure as heck is no greater threat for uniting citizens together then the threat of ‘catastrophic climate change’. is there?
He also indicates that an European Union like super state has been the goal since the 1930s.
Lamy sure hits a lot of the environmental panic buttons doesn’t he?